Cavalry completely useless in the last tech level 32.

[Kraxis]

Cavalry should be buffed up somehow. While it is true that in mid to late EUIV era, cavalry was unable to stood a chance against infantry in direct fight, it was still very useful for breaking weakened formations, scouting, pursuing fleeing enemy and cover own retreat. In Napoleonic era largest cavalry charges in history took place.

So what about some ideas, how to make cavalry more useful?
1. Make flanking more important than currently. Somehow simulate the cavalry effectiveness when attacking wavering and weakened infantry.
2. Army that has more cavalry should be able to inflict greater damage on fleeing enemy. That means enemies casualties should be increased after the battle is won. Army consisting purely of infantry and artillery should be able to win the battle - but he casualties should be roughly the same for both sides (most casualties happened during pursuit).
3. The reverse should be true, if losing army has cavalry advantage - they should be able to break the engagement retreat before being decimated too much.

What do you think? Do you have any other ideas?

I agree with the premise that cavalry should be made more... shall we say decisive.

My idea is for cavalry to remain out of the usual battle, in way like artillery. And initially only engage enemy cavalry. Meaning the smaller force's cavalry will spread out to match the enemy cavalry. In the Shock phase the cavalry will engage (so will avoid the fire phase losses). If some cavalry are unengaged by enemy cavalry they will flank the enemy infantry with a significant modifier for their Shock.

That way cavalry doesn't need to be stronger than infantry or heck even as strong overall. And it would make it vital for the army to have cavalry to engage the enemy cavalry. However, I don't know what to do with the situation of maxed CW battles. Maybe a few slots only cavalry can use on each flank? Could be a tech thing to unlock these slots over time. What do I know... I just feel that cavalry is woefully impotent, but just buffing cavalry to be stronger would for the most part be wrong as well (if less so).

 

[Novacat]

That way cavalry doesn't need to be stronger than infantry or heck even as strong overall. And it would make it vital for the army to have cavalry to engage the enemy cavalry. However, I don't know what to do with the situation of maxed CW battles. Maybe a few slots only cavalry can use on each flank? Could be a tech thing to unlock these slots over time. What do I know... I just feel that cavalry is woefully impotent, but just buffing cavalry to be stronger would for the most part be wrong as well (if less so).

The problem with cav-only slots is that, like my original post in this thread, people will just assume to use exactly the number of cavalry as they have slots, and no more, when its very clear due to the cav ratios that the game expects you to fill your forces with as much cavalry as possible. So, with that in mind, Cavalry should get an enormous buff, imho. It was not until the tank was introduced that cavalry became truly and honestly obsolete.

 

[grommile]

It's very shallow, difficult to influence, and works counterintuitively.

What's counterintuitive about "If you attack someone who has superior military technology and ideas across a river in unfavorable terrain and don't have a general, your army will be utterly massacred"?

 

[Kraxis]

The problem with cav-only slots is that, like my original post in this thread, people will just assume to use exactly the number of cavalry as they have slots, and no more, when its very clear due to the cav ratios that the game expects you to fill your forces with as much cavalry as possible. So, with that in mind, Cavalry should get an enormous buff, imho. It was not until the tank was introduced that cavalry became truly and honestly obsolete.

But not because it could fight infantry on equal terms. The very game mechanics work against cavalry as they are either historically too weak or too strong. And while I agree it is too weak for my tastes, I much prefer cavalry to be too weak to too strong. This was a period of infantry with cavalry having a niche, an important one I admit of course, but they simply didn't fight infantry head on for most of the period. A few spectacular forces did so with success, and are remembered for the fact that they were that good.

Cavalry made it's impact by being able to tactically move about. And could only be countered by artillery, other cavalry or ambushes. If left to their own devises they would roll up an enemy. That's what is lacking, the domino effect of a proper cavalry flanking attack. Right now even if you get all three units to attack the same infantry unit (with no enemy unit attack them back), it will just retreat and in many cases be replaced by a new enemy unit. That's just a bonus for ganging up on someone 3:1. Maybe infantry needs to have a pentalty for being flanked by cavalry? Like say a 50% reduction of their Fire effectiveness (for staying in Square or having the pikemen protect the musketeers, obviously a unit in those situations can't rally fight at maximum capacity). That would make cavalry flanking worthwhile to achieve.
But it still doesn't solve the issue of cavalry being a marginal force that takes a lot of losses if subjected to enemy action. And it certainly don't fix the maxed combat width. And cavalry certainly does suffer from the Fire phase. Usually cavalry didn't get mixed into that much. They stayed back or were engaged with enemy cavalry, at least until the decisive moment had arrived. I could accept the Caracole cavalry being a lot less about that moment, being more like horse archers (was it because the musketeers had to hide behind the pikemen allowing them to shoot freely at the infantry?), but for the most part cavalry lived for the glorious charge that rolled up the enemy army. And it is that decisiveness that is lacking, and I can't see how it can be achieved properly.

 

[Mjarr]

The problem with cav-only slots is that, like my original post in this thread, people will just assume to use exactly the number of cavalry as they have slots, and no more, when its very clear due to the cav ratios that the game expects you to fill your forces with as much cavalry as possible. So, with that in mind, Cavalry should get an enormous buff, imho. It was not until the tank was introduced that cavalry became truly and honestly obsolete.

Cavalry should be able to target multiple infantry and artillery targets (if deployed on the first line or exposed otherwise) and perhaps tie the actual number of units they can target up based on relative shock factor. Every extra unit they "target" should work like artillery from the 2nd row so it's only ½ the pips, but multiple targets at the same time nonetheless overlapping with other units targeting the units. Maybe add so that cavalry that is deployed on secondary line at the flank transfers defensive pips fully to the infantry in front.

 

[Saintrl]

It's very shallow, difficult to influence, and works counterintuitively. See numerous "why do I keep losing" threads. CK2 combat is much more interesting.

Oh please, don't even start about CK2 combat. I've seen far too many "LONGBOWS OP" topics to even imagine that CK2 combat is without it's own flaws.

 

[aitaituo]

What's counterintuitive about "If you attack someone who has superior military technology and ideas across a river in unfavorable terrain and don't have a general, your army will be utterly massacred"?

I am not sure what I have done to offend you. It is rarely so clear cut. I have been stackwiped when I had everything better except an inferior general (going up against Russia, so that's practically unavoidable). Having more troops, for example, is often a bad thing, because if you don't have just slightly more, most of your troops do nothing but still take morale damage, which means it can be better to keep a second army in reserve to engage when the battle is nearly over, unless you strongly overmatch the enemy in morale, tech, and general pips. Cavalry, as this whole thread is about, is a liability except in very particular circumstances that can't be easily planned for (the exact size of the enemy army you're going to engage in that specific battle).

Most of what you can influence is the big picture stuff, tech levels, unit types, military ideas, farming army tradition as much as possible, piety if you're Muslim. But how these all interact requires a lot of math. Can anyone tell me, off the top of their head, who will win between Poland (12/6/8, aristocracy, defensive, 5/4/3/1 general) and Austria (15/4/7, quality, offensive, 4/5/2/1 general) at tech level 16 with equal army tradition? How about with a river crossing? Poland at tech 17?

 

[Novacat]

Oh please, don't even start about CK2 combat. I've seen far too many "LONGBOWS OP" topics to even imagine that CK2 combat is without it's own flaws.

To be fair, its not like EUIV isnt that much better with western europeans stack-wiping everyone else.

PS:

Most of what you can influence is the big picture stuff, tech levels, unit types, military ideas, farming army tradition as much as possible, piety if you're Muslim. But how these all interact requires a lot of math. Can anyone tell me, off the top of their head, who will win between Poland (12/6/8, aristocracy, defensive, 5/4/3/1 general) and Austria (15/4/7, quality, offensive, 4/5/2/1 general) at tech level 16 with equal army tradition? How about with a river crossing? Poland at tech 17?

Poland has a +40% Morale advantage, +10 Discipline, +10% infantry power, and +43% Cavalry Power. Austria will have +25 Discipline, +10% Infantry Power, and +10% Cavalry Power. Austria will likely win because of shock going first. Maurician Infantry have 7/4/4/3/4/1 while Cavalry has 2/2/2/0/3/2. Eastern infantry has 5/4/3/3/3/2 and cavalry has 4/2/0/0/3/2. That initial fire phase is going to be brutal for Poland since their cavalry has no defenses against it and their morale advantage runs short considering Mauricians whopping 7-point offensive morale. Though if Poland lucks out the first initial fire round without severe losses they could potentially stomp the Austrians, which is possible.

 

[Laureolus]

How about Calvary avoiding the first fire phase, then moving in for the first shock phase? Let's them "Tactically" use their mobility to strike when they're needed. They take all the other fire phases though.

So if you want to have stack like 40/6/40, 6 extra Inf. to hold for the first fire phase when are then replaced with Cav. for the shock phase. The Cav. stay in the battle line until depleted then.

 

[registeraccount]

Cavalry's extra manuver is neigh-useless. It only comes into play if the enemy army is under the maximum combat width, but any serious slugfest between armies will usually have the combat width completely full, thus completely nullifying that cavalry advantage. Especially since units can only attack one other unit at a time.

You are right... 40-40 might very well be the most optimised paradigm.

I don't understand your argument. If both combat widths are full, those additional flanking cavalry will be dealing damage that you otherwise wouldn't have.

The ideal army comp always has cavalry, so the optimal end-game unit is 40-2-40. Front line filled with infantry, back line filled with artillery, two flanking cavalry. You don't need more than two cavalry in this case because there's no point in having cavalry reinforcements if you don't have infantry reinforcements either.

 

[Novacat]

I don't understand your argument. If both combat widths are full, those additional flanking cavalry will be dealing damage that you otherwise wouldn't have.

The ideal army comp always has cavalry, so the optimal end-game unit is 40-2-40. Front line filled with infantry, back line filled with artillery, two flanking cavalry. You don't need more than two cavalry in this case because there's no point in having cavalry reinforcements if you don't have infantry reinforcements either.

Except Cavalry cannot flank combat width. They are placed in combat width like everything else, and thus, in your case, 38 infantry, 2 cavalry with 40 artillery will be facing off against an opponent with two of your infantry regiments not doing anything until one of your frontline regiments falters.

 

[Kraxis]

How about Calvary avoiding the first fire phase, then moving in for the first shock phase? Let's them "Tactically" use their mobility to strike when they're needed. They take all the other fire phases though.

So if you want to have stack like 40/6/40, 6 extra Inf. to hold for the first fire phase when are then replaced with Cav. for the shock phase. The Cav. stay in the battle line until depleted then.

I have considered this and it will mean that for a while the cavalry remains worthwhile, but even so they are not going to hack it later on. But I'm confident that some sort of Fire phase immunity or reduction should really be applied. But the problem is that compared to the current very simple system we have to come up with complex scenarios and 'if-then' lines to make them worth the effort. And that makes it ever so much less likely to happen at all (Paradox needs to do it, remember).
I don't see how either buffing cavalry directly can work satisfactorily nor can I see a less than quite complex plan for doing it.

 

[unmerged(131570)]

To be fair, its not like EUIV isnt that much better with western europeans stack-wiping everyone else.

PS:



Poland has a +40% Morale advantage, +10 Discipline, +10% infantry power, and +43% Cavalry Power. Austria will have +25 Discipline, +10% Infantry Power, and +10% Cavalry Power. Austria will likely win because of shock going first. Maurician Infantry have 7/4/4/3/4/1 while Cavalry has 2/2/2/0/3/2. Eastern infantry has 5/4/3/3/3/2 and cavalry has 4/2/0/0/3/2. That initial fire phase is going to be brutal for Poland since their cavalry has no defenses against it and their morale advantage runs short considering Mauricians whopping 7-point offensive morale. Though if Poland lucks out the first initial fire round without severe losses they could potentially stomp the Austrians, which is possible.

I think he said, off the top of your head... if that's off the top of your head, hats off to you! Though I need to assume "shock going first" is a typo on your part.

 

[Alblaka]

Even in tech 3 cavalry isnt worth its 2.5x price premium over infantry, and by tech 12 infantry will beat cavalry even 1:1... Cavalry still has its uses due to the flanking bonus, but outside of flanking cavalry is useless.

Note that the endgame optimized build is 34 infantry, 6 cavalry (flanking), and 40 artillery.

Actually, having those 4 cavs in early game vs an army that has the same size width as your total infantry turns a win into a crushing steamroll, minimizing your casualtys. Ofc the upkeep for cav is a factor, but if I can afford cav, I always have 4 (later 6) in my army

 

[Andy_Dandy]

Cavalry should be buffed up somehow. While it is true that in mid to late EUIV era, cavalry was unable to stood a chance against infantry in direct fight, it was still very useful for breaking weakened formations, scouting, pursuing fleeing enemy and cover own retreat. In Napoleonic era largest cavalry charges in history took place.

So what about some ideas, how to make cavalry more useful?
1. Make flanking more important than currently. Somehow simulate the cavalry effectiveness when attacking wavering and weakened infantry.
2. Army that has more cavalry should be able to inflict greater damage on fleeing enemy. That means enemies casualties should be increased after the battle is won. Army consisting purely of infantry and artillery should be able to win the battle - but he casualties should be roughly the same for both sides (most casualties happened during pursuit).
3. The reverse should be true, if losing army has cavalry advantage - they should be able to break the engagement retreat before being decimated too much.

What do you think? Do you have any other ideas?

Sounds like good ways to make cavalry better, if they decide to do that. Much better then increasing their base stats.

 

[nossnahoj]

Tell me something, with max combat width of 25, why would I ever need more ART then that in any army? more INF sure as I would want to reinforce and keep ART from frontline, but why 40?

 

[Komutan]

The combat mechanics need a complete overhaul. Something like the combat system in March of the Eagles would work much better.

 

[MaXimillion]

Tell me something, with max combat width of 25, why would I ever need more ART then that in any army? more INF sure as I would want to reinforce and keep ART from frontline, but why 40?

Because max combat width is 25+15?

 

[Novacat]

I think he said, off the top of your head... if that's off the top of your head, hats off to you! Though I need to assume "shock going first" is a typo on your part.

Mostly off the top of my head. If it was entirely off the top of my head I would not have provided exact numbers on pips. Yes, the shock going first is a late-night typo. I meant fire.

Tell me something, with max combat width of 25, why would I ever need more ART then that in any army? more INF sure as I would want to reinforce and keep ART from frontline, but why 40?

Lategame max combat width is 40.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I was going to raise a point about cavalry getting a flanking bonus... but I check the EU4 combat mechanics on the wiki and did a double take...

I could not find any reference to a flanking bonus or a cavalry bonus whatsoever.

Or, to be more specific, Cavalry's extra manuver is neigh-useless. It only comes into play if the enemy army is under the maximum combat width, but any serious slugfest between armies will usually have the combat width completely full, thus completely nullifying that cavalry advantage. Especially since units can only attack one other unit at a time.

You are right... 40-40 might very well be the most optimised paradigm.

In the early game, combat width is 15 (lowest of low tech nations) or 20+ for everyone better than sub-Saharan. A full combat width isn't plausible for many nations at that point, so the maneuver advantage is real. Also, in the early-mid game the base shock from tech is much better for cavalry than infantry while the fire phase is mostly junk pre-10ish. Unfortunately, the nations that most benefit from cavalry struggle to afford it, and most of them should use 100% infantry while piggybacking big allies or just declaring on weak opponents (or large opponents who are depleted).

That said, it does allow you to stack wipe and/or inflict far more casualties on overmatched forces. Even late-game, the AI will fan out quite a bit to siege. In a true late-game slugfest, it would make more sense to bring in your extra cavalry mid-battle, especially when considering factors like morale decay and mid-battle supply limit/maneuver range calculations. Bringing it in mid-combat also helps avoid the problem of fire coming before shock, such that a front of pure infantry does more initial damage than a front of pure cavalry.

Basically, that means you want 40/40 (though keep in mind that with losses and mid-battle updates of insufficient supply, you almost certainly want more than 40 infantry unless defending hills/mountains), and then to bring in some cavalry after the battle begins so that it can actually use its full maneuver (which gets reduced by damage) to inflict casualties once it actually matters. Maybe a 40/40 stack infantry/arty and then another 20 stack with 10 infantry, 10 cavalry would be nice. The cavalry can fill in on the front to take advantage of the maneuver mid-battle.

Cavalry isn't useless per se', but unless you're nomad you don't want to be spamming it. It's very much something to inflict more casualties when you have the advantage, but unless you're routinely losing all of your battles you will have the advantage eventually .